Police set up a sting operation with a sexy, female cop posing as a hooker. She lolls around a street corner, smiling at passing motorists. When a john pulls up, she engages him in conversation designed to get him to offer her money for sex. When he does, he is then busted. The idea is, if they arrest the johns, they will force the hookers to find some other form of work.

But what about the aftermath of all this? Most of the time, the john is some lowlife who is out looking to get laid by a hooker. This guy has nothing going for him and very little to lose by being busted for solicitation.

But, all too often, the potential customer is not just some lowlife with nothing to lose. All too often, he is a married man with a family, a good job, and a great deal to lose by being arrested for solicitation. In many communities, the local newspaper takes great delight in publishing the names of men arrested in prostitution sting operations, the idea being that public shame will deter other, potential offenders.

So what happens to the businessman who gets caught soliciting a "hooker" for a quick blow job or some such? Potentially, a great deal. The immediate, legal consequences are obvious: arrest, guilty plea, probation, fine, conviction on record until expunged. But what about the other consequences to a man of substance? Potentially - divorce, loss of job, possibly loss of career, loss of children, financial disaster and, in some extreme cases, death by suicide caused by depression over everything that happened because of the arrest, prosecution and conviction.

On balance, is this right? Is it fair? Consider what happens to a hooker if they bust HER for engaging in prostitution. Very little. She is taken to the station and booked. If she has a pimp, the pimp bails her out and she is back on the street within a matter of hours. She may ultimately have to pay a fine (that is, her pimp has to pay the fine as a practical matter), she may have to do a day or two in jail, end of story. To the hooker, it means very little, because she has very little to lose.

I submit that the potential harm to the man of substance who gets caught in one of these operations is far, far worse than the potential harm to the hooker. Yet, our system seems totally oblivious to this fact. It doesn't care. I think it should care. I think that a little weighing and balancing should be done on a very realistic and practical level, and the criminal justice system should recognize what is going on in this type of situation, and back off on "busting the john." Bust the hooker, if you want to continue to make prostitution illegal, but lay off the john. The punishment to him, all in all, is WAY out of proportion to the punishment for the hooker.

This thread is prompted by a post MikeK made in the other thread on legalizing prostitution. I await, with interest, the comments on this OP.

Some products, like prostitution, pose health and crime hazards. All products require a market. Take away the market, and the hazards go with it.

Click to expand...

True - but, in this case, shouldn't the potential harm to the male customer be considered, since it is so out of proportion to the crime committed? Compare the potential harm to the real criminal here - the hooker herself. Very little potential harm to the hooker as a practical matter.

I submit that the potential harm to the man of substance who gets caught in one of these operations is far, far worse than the potential harm to the hooker. Yet, our system seems totally oblivious to this fact. It doesn't care. I think it should care. I think that a little weighing and balancing should be done on a very realistic and practical level, and the criminal justice system should recognize what is going on in this type of situation, and back off on "busting the john." Bust the hooker, if you want to continue to make prostitution illegal, but lay off the john. The punishment to him, all in all, is WAY out of proportion to the punishment for the hooker.

Click to expand...

George, George, George! So a man of substance gets a better deal because he has money? You are saying there should be a double standard here. That is un-American! Are not all humans equal? Should we all not be treated the same? If a rich man kills someone should they be slapped on the wrist while the poor man is executed? A crime is a crime and prostitution and soliciting for prostitution is illegal. The rich man or man of substance as you say it, will always get the better deal in court because they can hire the best lawyers. This double standard already exists, do you want to take it further and create 2 laws, one for the rich and one for the everday working man?

Prostitution seems to cause a host of problems around it. As it general rule, it seems that when you want to end a market, it is more effective to remove the customer from the equation than the supplier.

The drug market is a great example of this. As long as the customer base is constant, the supply will come in. No mater what the interdiction methods.

The Reagan policy on cocaine and the Kennedy Johnson policy on opium derivatives caused problems way beyond just the enforcement on the streets, and hurt US foreign policy.

Make it expensive for the johns, the hookers will go away. There are always more hookers, but the supply has to meet the demand. Reduce the demand, you reduce the supply.

I submit that the potential harm to the man of substance who gets caught in one of these operations is far, far worse than the potential harm to the hooker. Yet, our system seems totally oblivious to this fact. It doesn't care. I think it should care. I think that a little weighing and balancing should be done on a very realistic and practical level, and the criminal justice system should recognize what is going on in this type of situation, and back off on "busting the john." Bust the hooker, if you want to continue to make prostitution illegal, but lay off the john. The punishment to him, all in all, is WAY out of proportion to the punishment for the hooker.

Click to expand...

George, George, George! So a man of substance gets a better deal because he has money? You are saying there should be a double standard here. That is un-American! Are not all humans equal? Should we all not be treated the same? If a rich man kills someone should they be slapped on the wrist while the poor man is executed? A crime is a crime and prostitution and soliciting for prostitution is illegal. The rich man or man of substance as you say it, will always get the better deal in court because they can hire the best lawyers. This double standard already exists, do you want to take it further and create 2 laws, one for the rich and one for the everday working man?

Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Let's take your side of the argument - so a man of substance should get a worse penalty because he is a man of substance? With all due respect, that's not a very conservative argument. I thought you guys were on the side of wealth and power. Where are all of my "hate crime legislation violates equal protection" friends when it comes to this argument?

The way things stand now, there are 2 laws - one for the hooker and one for the john, and the john gets by far the worst of it.

I submit that the potential harm to the man of substance who gets caught in one of these operations is far, far worse than the potential harm to the hooker. Yet, our system seems totally oblivious to this fact. It doesn't care. I think it should care. I think that a little weighing and balancing should be done on a very realistic and practical level, and the criminal justice system should recognize what is going on in this type of situation, and back off on "busting the john." Bust the hooker, if you want to continue to make prostitution illegal, but lay off the john. The punishment to him, all in all, is WAY out of proportion to the punishment for the hooker.

Click to expand...

George, George, George! So a man of substance gets a better deal because he has money? You are saying there should be a double standard here. That is un-American! Are not all humans equal? Should we all not be treated the same? If a rich man kills someone should they be slapped on the wrist while the poor man is executed? A crime is a crime and prostitution and soliciting for prostitution is illegal. The rich man or man of substance as you say it, will always get the better deal in court because they can hire the best lawyers. This double standard already exists, do you want to take it further and create 2 laws, one for the rich and one for the everday working man?

Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Let's take your side of the argument - so a man of substance should get a worse penalty because he is a man of substance? With all due respect, that's not a very conservative argument. I thought you guys were on the side of wealth and power. Where are all of my "hate crime legislation violates equal protection" friends when it comes to this argument?

The way things stand now, there are 2 laws - one for the hooker and one for the john, and the john gets by far the worst of it.

Click to expand...

No, for many women, it's the only thing they know. When they are punished for it, they have nothing. That's the terribly sad reality.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!